I agree completely with that, the lentil gestapo won, I wonder what will be their next target as its gone a bit quiet in the world of the health junkie of late.
As they strive to make our world a healthy place however, the whole of the country is falling to pieces around them. The government concentrates instead on placating this lot than sorting out the pressing issues of the day.
Before too long we will be living in a clockwork orange future, nice white clean and healthy but with ultraviolence the daily normality as society has fallen to bits whilst we were encouraging people to eat their greens.
In 15-20 years there may well be kids that dont recall the smoking ban in pubs, but they will recall the violence on the news last night or the friend they lost after he was kicked to death by an angry bunch of *insert hardline religious nutters here*
They wont remember the girl that got shot in Birmingham though for wanting to go to school as by then that will be the norm for the UK.
we wont have to worry about passive smoking though !
Hmmm...Interesting theory, the ban on smoking is promoting crime and violence!
Besides, the smoking ban isn't going anywhere anyway. In the eyes of the government and most of the public, it's been popular and a success. To get the smoking ban scrapped or relaxed you'd have to actively show it isn't working in its current form and people don't agree with it, and quite simply that isn't the case. Some e-petitions with a couple of hundred signitures, moaning from hardened smokers and anecdotal stories about pubs closing isn't going to change that.
It has indeed and no amount of discussion here is going to change anything now not after 5 years. E-petitions are a waste of time, nobody is taking any notice of them and posts here about what could be done, should be done, might have been done, are now all just pie in the sky, but I suppose it gives smokers some sort of glimmer of hope and a straw to cling to that one day the ban will be lifted, but there is absolutely no chance of that now.
The public as a whole like it and is is undoubtedly the best piece of legislation that the Labour Party introduced in their time in office though they needed the support of other parties to enable it to be passed.
So the smoking ban began in England five years ago today. Do you think it has been a good thing or do you hate it?
Is it now permanent?
I certainly think that it is a good thing, as I can now sit anywhere I want in a pub without worrying about inhaling the smoke from the selfish smokers and not be put off from eating meals!
What pisses me off is that if smoking is sooooo bad why don't they just stop selling them - go the whole hog and make them illegal?
Oh, but then they wouldn't get all the bloody income from taxes would they, duh!
I believe that we live in a free country. If you wish to kill yourself with a legally available drug then that's fine.
However I do think that you should do this by yourself. I also think you should get away from the idea that your drug addiction is in someway way subsidizing the national health service and the country in general. It's not. It's your drug addiction talking.
And why you think that you should, in this free and pleasant land,be able to inflict your smelly and frankly poisonous habit on the the rest of the populous is beyond me.
Be honest though what did you smell the first time you went into a club or pub at the weekend of the smoking ban. BO and FARTS. If there is a canopy, space heater outside bit for smokers im ok it does not bother me anymore. It is also true that if everybody stopped smoking or drinking as that is just as bad btw at the same time we would all be on rations as the gov would lose so much revenue
I certainly think that it is a good thing, as I can now sit anywhere I want in a pub without worrying about inhaling the smoke from the selfish smokers and not be put off from eating meals!
I'm not so sure that you are that bothered though.
When I say 'you' - I mean the average non-smoking pub goer. Because, if people really cared that much about smoke, then there would have been tons of "no smoking" pubs/bars. But there wasn't...
That tells me, that although people were mildly annoyed about putting up with smoke, they didn't actually care enough to do anything about it. Of course, when the opportunity to get rid of smoke is handed to you on a plate, then you take it - but that is just the tyranny of the majority.
I work in a pub and remember when you could smoke in it, lucky for me i didnt start working in the bar area till after the smoking ban was well in place. Couldnt even imagine how awfull it would be working in that environment!
I work in a pub and remember when you could smoke in it, lucky for me i didnt start working in the bar area till after the smoking ban was well in place. Couldnt even imagine how awfull it would be working in that environment!
I cant imagine how awful it would be to work in a bar, full stop.
As I said before, smokers never believe any studies or statistics which contradict their point of view. So no point in quoting them. Let them learn the truth the hard way if they really need to while we get on with enjoying our smoke-free environment.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Anti-smokers have a very bad rep when it comes to science. Could you quote from a "study" first rule of science is check then double check.
Anti-smokers have a very bad rep when it comes to science. Could you quote from a "study" first rule of science is check then double check.
I think you need to substantiate that sweeping statement if you can? Since the main anti-smokers are scientists and health professionals? Who are the pro-smokers? Tobacco executives and the helplessly addicted? Who has the better credentials with regard to science?
There are lots of valid studies all over the internet. Blind studies, double blind studies, peer review studies etc etc etc. All published by reputable scientists where check and double-check is seen as an almost laughable minimum standard.
If the tobacco companies, with their multi-million pound budgets have been still been unable to contest or disprove the findings of multiple health professionals then that’s good enough for me.
I’m sure if you do a couple of searches you will soon find lots of useful, valid and incontestable data but at the end of the day it is not my job to educate you. Whether you believe the statistics or not has absolutely no impact upon my meal or drink taken in clean, smoke-free air.
I think you need to substantiate that sweeping statement if you can? Since the main anti-smokers are scientists and health professionals?
Looking behind a number of reports (usually) on the BBC, I get the impression that the anti-smoking groups who feed the news outlets are a bunch of lying, deceitful imbeciles.
The blogger linked below is often a good source for keeping up with their antics.
Well it pretty much made me give up, so thanks Smoking Ban - you saved me more than 10 grand, made me feel ten times healthier and, hopefully, allowed me a little bit longer on this Earth. I loved my **** but the ban and patches made it easier to get over the hideous addiction.
Looking behind a number of reports (usually) on the BBC, I get the impression that the anti-smoking groups who feed the news outlets are a bunch of lying, deceitful imbeciles.
The blogger linked below is often a good source for keeping up with their antics.
You'll sooner discover the British Medical Association are pretty bad too, never mind the 'charities' such as ASH.
Hmmm….
Believe the scientific papers of accredited health professionals, peer reviewed and published in the likes of independent, respected journals such as the Lancet and the New Scientist?
Or believe some unknown blogger with no health or science credentials at all with equally unknown motives?
Believe the scientific papers of accredited health professionals, peer reviewed and published in the likes of independent, respected journals such as the Lancet and the New Scientist?
Or believe some unknown blogger with no health or science credentials at all with equally unknown motives?
Yes, that’s a tough choice! :rolleyes:
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Where did I mention scientists? Those who push anti-smoking/drinking/eating agendas are usually health lobbyists, 'charities' and the BMA. And if you actually took the effort to read the blog, you'll see that the claims coming from the groups often don't tally with research and data.
Looking behind a number of reports (usually) on the BBC, I get the impression that the anti-smoking groups who feed the news outlets are a bunch of lying, deceitful imbeciles.
The blogger linked below is often a good source for keeping up with their antics.
The British Medical Association has admitted that its claim that smoking in cars generates 23 times more toxins than you would find in a smoky bar is wrong.
23 times? Oh really...
Now, quietly, with no media fanfare, the BMA has corrected its press release. It now says: "The restrictive internal environment in motor vehicles could expose drivers and passengers to toxins up to 11 times greater than in a smoky bar."
So it's 11 times now? Hmm, maybe not...
Even one of the studies cited by the BMA as proof of the (11) figure actually says something quite different.
Comments
Fancy nippping outside for a ciggie?
Hmmm...Interesting theory, the ban on smoking is promoting crime and violence!
Oh wait!!! >>>>The Real Position.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
It has indeed and no amount of discussion here is going to change anything now not after 5 years. E-petitions are a waste of time, nobody is taking any notice of them and posts here about what could be done, should be done, might have been done, are now all just pie in the sky, but I suppose it gives smokers some sort of glimmer of hope and a straw to cling to that one day the ban will be lifted, but there is absolutely no chance of that now.
The public as a whole like it and is is undoubtedly the best piece of legislation that the Labour Party introduced in their time in office though they needed the support of other parties to enable it to be passed.
Oh, but then they wouldn't get all the bloody income from taxes would they, duh!
I believe that we live in a free country. If you wish to kill yourself with a legally available drug then that's fine.
However I do think that you should do this by yourself. I also think you should get away from the idea that your drug addiction is in someway way subsidizing the national health service and the country in general. It's not. It's your drug addiction talking.
And why you think that you should, in this free and pleasant land,be able to inflict your smelly and frankly poisonous habit on the the rest of the populous is beyond me.
I'm not so sure that you are that bothered though.
When I say 'you' - I mean the average non-smoking pub goer. Because, if people really cared that much about smoke, then there would have been tons of "no smoking" pubs/bars. But there wasn't...
That tells me, that although people were mildly annoyed about putting up with smoke, they didn't actually care enough to do anything about it. Of course, when the opportunity to get rid of smoke is handed to you on a plate, then you take it - but that is just the tyranny of the majority.
I'm not going to start joining in cock waving - I'll just say 'time will tell'.
We shall see I suppose.
I cant imagine how awful it would be to work in a bar, full stop.
No cock-waving. Just cold, hard facts as opposed to wild, fanciful speculation?
Have you watched Clockwork Orange just a few times too many perhaps?
Regards,
Lt. Dang
I think you need to substantiate that sweeping statement if you can? Since the main anti-smokers are scientists and health professionals? Who are the pro-smokers? Tobacco executives and the helplessly addicted? Who has the better credentials with regard to science?
There are lots of valid studies all over the internet. Blind studies, double blind studies, peer review studies etc etc etc. All published by reputable scientists where check and double-check is seen as an almost laughable minimum standard.
If the tobacco companies, with their multi-million pound budgets have been still been unable to contest or disprove the findings of multiple health professionals then that’s good enough for me.
I’m sure if you do a couple of searches you will soon find lots of useful, valid and incontestable data but at the end of the day it is not my job to educate you. Whether you believe the statistics or not has absolutely no impact upon my meal or drink taken in clean, smoke-free air.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Looking behind a number of reports (usually) on the BBC, I get the impression that the anti-smoking groups who feed the news outlets are a bunch of lying, deceitful imbeciles.
The blogger linked below is often a good source for keeping up with their antics.
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/
You'll sooner discover the British Medical Association are pretty bad too, never mind the 'charities' such as ASH.
Hmmm….
Believe the scientific papers of accredited health professionals, peer reviewed and published in the likes of independent, respected journals such as the Lancet and the New Scientist?
Or believe some unknown blogger with no health or science credentials at all with equally unknown motives?
Yes, that’s a tough choice! :rolleyes:
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Where did I mention scientists? Those who push anti-smoking/drinking/eating agendas are usually health lobbyists, 'charities' and the BMA. And if you actually took the effort to read the blog, you'll see that the claims coming from the groups often don't tally with research and data.
Oh, and :rolleyes:
Fondest love, Janey
Why even bother, what dickpuddlecote thinks or says about the smoking ban, he or anyone else are not going to change anything now.
23 times? Oh really...
So it's 11 times now? Hmm, maybe not...